GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

43,02,386/-. Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited 6. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) in both the years. In A.Y. 2016-17, ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a perusal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

43,02,386/-. Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited 6. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) in both the years. In A.Y. 2016-17, ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a perusal

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

43,67,25,641/- and disallowance of the provisional expenditure as per para 11 of the assessment order at ₹44,70,128/- were made and the total income was assessed at ₹176,92,74,630/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered in detail the provisions of section 36(1

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

1)(viia) of Rs. 18,99,43,632/- is allowed.” 9. Keeping in view the above discussion and the order passed by the CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the aforesaid issue i.e. the disallowance made under this head amounting to Rs. 10,70,70,590/- 10. Coming

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1. The assessee at the time of hearing before CIT(A) had submitted in respect of the disallowance u/s 40A(3) as below:- “In respect of the additions on account of application of Section 40A(3) on the cash payment entries of, out of books purchases and sales recorded in I.T.A. No.: 239/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajit Kumar

PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

1) of this Rule as mentioned by the appellant so as above, earlier provided for exemption under exceptional and unavoidable circumstances and there was option before the assessee to show before the AO to his satisfaction hat such payments had been made under such circumstances. However, this Clause is no longer in operation in the assessment year under consideration....\"\nThe

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

43 of the paper book. He also drew our attention towards inventory of cash found during the course of search, details are available on page 44 and inventory of stock found is available on page 45 (Annexure A/3). On the strength of these details, he pointed out that the evidence regarding bogus share 9 Assessment Year

DIVYA PRAKASH,BHOJPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

1) was issued and served to the assessee. In response to the notice Sri Rajiv Ranjan, adv and the assessee himself appeared to represent the case. During the course of proceedings it was submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale of liquor . The assesee was asked to produce statement of all bank account, all books

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1) passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16, by the ld. assessing officer at Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.186/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank……….....…..…………………....Appellant Sharma Complex, Ramna Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aaaju0238J] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.47,24,77,982. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Manual Selection Criteria During The Financial Year 2017-18. Accordingly, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Made Certain Submissions. However, The Assessing Officer Made The Following Additions/Disallowances: Rs.16,84,20,016: Provision For Npa.

section 36(1)(va) as not deposited before the due date. After the above disallowances, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,43

LAL BABU PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. On the basis of the submissions made by the assessee, a discrepancy in stock was identified at ₹3,25,06,633. After deducting the opening stock of ₹49,68,567, the net discrepancy was worked out. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee voluntarily declared additional income

MATA LALTI DEVI FOUNDATION,ARA vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

43,153 for AY 2021-22. The AO assessed the entire gross receipt as income after disallowing applications of funds. The appeal was filed after a delay of 244 days.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide. It held that an educational institution with gross receipts not exceeding ₹1 crore is not required

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,BHAGALPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA

43 Lakh\nPage 4\nI.T.A. No.: 607/PAT/2024\n Assessment Year: 2021-22\nSriram Enterprises.\nwas made. The sums outstanding were added as the notices u/s 133(6)\nof the Act issued by the Ld. AO were not responded by the parties and\nthe amounts were in relation to the services and goods purchased and\nthe same were treated as unexplained

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

43 days in this\nmatter. The assessee has filed a petition requesting for condonation of the\nsaid delay as under:\n“1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the instant\nappeal.\n2. That the petitioner states that the impugned order was passed on 17.11.2023 by\nthe Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal